9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 986X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessment records of the assessee company. The Pr. CIT holding a conviction that the A.O by wrongly treating the assessee as 'an agent' of the State Government of Maharashtra had wrongly allowed its claim for exemption of its receipts under Article 289(1) of the Constitution of India, thus, called upon it to explain as to why the assessment order passed under Sec. 143(3), dated 29.12.2018 may not be revised. In reply, the assessee on the basis of its multiple contentions tried to impress upon the Pr. CIT that the assessment order passed by the A.O u/s 143(3), dated 29.12.2018 could not be held to be erroneous within the meaning of Sec. 263 of the Act. Also the assumption of jurisdiction by the Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act was challenged by the assessee. However, the Pr. CIT did not find favour with the contentions that were advanced by the assessee both on merits as well as the validity of jurisdiction that was assumed by him qua the proceedings in question. The Pr. CIT further observed that the claim of the assessee that the receipts earned by it from its business activities belonged to the Government of Maharashtra and it was only acting as 'an agent' of the State Government we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as ITA No. 795/Mum/2021 and is pending disposal as on date. 4. Before us, it was submitted by the ld. Authorized Representative (for short 'A.R') for the assessee applicant, that as the assessee has a prima facie good case on merits and the balance of convenience lies in its favour, therefore, in all fairness, and in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation the A.O be restrained from passing the assessment order pursuant to the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s 263, dated 31.03.2021. It was submitted by the ld. A.R, that the entire controversy involved in the present case hinges around the conviction of the Pr. CIT that the A.O had wrongly concurred with the assessee, and held, that as it was 'an agent' of the Government of Maharashtra, therefore, the excess of its receipts over expenditure was not exigible to tax. In order to buttress his aforesaid claim that no infirmity did emerge from the well reasoned view taken by the A.O that the assessee company was acting as 'an agent' of the Government of Maharashtra, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the said issue was squarely covered by the orders passed by the co-ordinate benches of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case viz A.Y 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance of convenience lies in its favour, therefore, in all fairness, and in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the A.O be restrained for a period of 6 months from framing a de novo assessment pursuant to the directions given by the Pr. CIT vide his order passed u/s 263 of the Act, dated 31.03.2021. On the contrary, the ld. D.R had strongly objected to the aforesaid seeking of restraint by the assessee. 7. After giving a thoughtful consideration to the issue before us, we think it apt, to herein observe, that the exercise of powers by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal have to strictly remain within the scope and gamut of those conferred upon it by the legislature in all its wisdom. Before adverting to and dealing with the issue in hand, we may, herein observe, that framing of a de novo assessment by an A.O pursuant to the directions given by the Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act has to be within the specified time period as had been spelled out in unequivocal terms in sub-section (3) to Sec. 153 of the Act. Only exception for extending the stipulated time period for giving effect to the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s 263 can be found in the 'first proviso' to sub-section (5) of Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on which the Assessing Officer directs the assessee to get his accounts audited under sub-section (2A) of section 142 and- (a) ending with the last date on which the assessee is required to furnish a report of such audit under that sub-section; or (b) where such direction is challenged before a court, ending with the date on which the order setting aside such direction is received by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner; or (v) the period commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the Valuation Officer under sub-section (1) of section 142A and ending with the date on which the report of the Valuation Officer is received by the Assessing Officer; or (vi) the period (not exceeding sixty days) commencing from the date on which the Assessing Officer received the declaration under sub-section (1) of section 158A and ending with the date on which the order under sub-section (3) of that section is made by him; or (vii) in a case where an application made before the Income-tax Settlement Commission is rejected by it or is not allowed to be proceeded with by it, the period commencing from the date on which an application is made before the S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... framing the de novo assessment in pursuance to the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s 263, dated 31.03.2021. 8. Adverting to the claim of the assessee that it has a good case on merits, without expressing any opinion, we prima facie find substantial force in the same, for the reason, that the issue involved in the present appeal, viz. as to whether or not the assessee is 'an agent' of the state government of Maharashtra, as claimed by the ld. A.R is squarely covered by the respective orders passed by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case, viz. (i) A.Y 2014-15, in ITA No. 2840/Mum/2019, dated 16.10.2019; and (ii) A.Y 2015-16 in ITA No. 1278/Mum/2020, dated 28.09.2000, wherein the respective orders passed by the Pr. CIT-15, Mumbai u/s 263 of the Act, involving identical facts are stated to have been set-aside by the Tribunal. 9. In the backdrop of our aforesaid deliberations, though, we remain conscious of the fact that circumscribed by the prescribed time limitation for framing of an assessment pursuant to an order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act, there is an innate limitation on staying of the assessment proceedings, but then, at the same time we cannot also remain obliv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
